Finally a serious question about 2nd Ammendmet

[badbabysitter]

well, from me at least

I'm a Canadian, we dont have the 2nd Ammendment

I'm curious as to why it is a right to carry a weapon

Personally I see firearm possesion as a privilege then a right, and so does my country

so why is it a right in the states.. what is it about carrying a gun that gives itself the societal equivalent to free speech

just curious

 

[Busybody]

what OTHER parts of the CONSTITUTION do you have a problem with?

 

[Busybody]

Besides

You aren't an American


WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU?

 

[badbabysitter]

it's a serious question... why is learning something such a threat to you?

 

[Busybody]

I gave you a serious ANSWER


WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE

 

[Busybody]

if you dont like THAT answer

what other part of the Constitution you have a problem with?

 

[badbabysitter]

if you dont like THAT answer

what other part of the Constitution you have a problem with?

because it wasnt an answer.. it was you yelling something completely irrelevant

so why is carrrying a weapon a right

 

[Busybody]

so why is carrrying a weapon a right

cause its in the Constitution

what other part of the Constitution you have a problem with?

 

[Busybody]

I have a problem wth the Constitution giving women and the COLOREDS the right to vote

 

[badbabysitter]

cause its in the Constitution

what other part of the Constitution you have a problem with?

but why is it there?

why is it a right and not a privilege?

what makes it vital to the freedom of the human condition?

 

[Busybody]

but why is it there?

why is it a right and not a privilege?

what makes it vital to the freedom of the human condition?

why is FREE SPEECH in there

why is WOMEN voting or COLROEDS voting n there?

why is EVERYTHING IN THERE?

what else do you have a problem with?

and

since you are a CANT YUK

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[badbabysitter]

Because the founders believed it necessary to the security of a "free" state. They believed it essential to the protection of liberty that the government not have a monopoly on violence. A disarmed citizenry could never have opposed the King and his army to establish the United States of America. It goes all the way back to the beginning.

Yes, I understand the history of why it was needed

but the Constitution has changed and been ammended since.. the original Constitution didnt give women rights or abolish slavery

so if these others parts have evolved, and America is in no threat of being overrun by England anymore..why hasnt that changed as well?

as for the monopoly on violence.. why should people have the right to violence?

violence means the forcible implementation of one's will onto another.. it is the very opposite of freedom

the governemt by no means should be violent... but does that mean the populace should be allowed to do so with means to do so.. though it violates other basic freedoms?

alrighty, that's getting way off track, and not really about guns

back to the point.. without the threat of foreign violence on the populace..why is being armed a right.. when a military and police force should serve as that deterrent in this modern age

 

[badbabysitter]

What if you had to have a high school diploma to speak freely, would you think your right to free speech would be infringed? You need to read the Heller decision for an explanation of why.

I need a drivers license to travel via property I own though

I also need to present identification to purchase alcohol and tobacco...

those are already restrictions on my rights

how is owning a gun different then owning a car

I have the right ot own property..why do I need strong restrictions on a car, yet not as many for a gun

what makes the gun more vital to my freedom then a car?

 

[julybaby04]

Yes, I understand the history of why it was needed

but the Constitution has changed and been ammended since.. the original Constitution didnt give women rights or abolish slavery

so if these others parts have evolved, and America is in no threat of being overrun by England anymore..why hasnt that changed as well?

as for the monopoly on violence.. why should people have the right to violence?

violence means the forcible implementation of one's will onto another.. it is the very opposite of freedom

the governemt by no means should be violent... but does that mean the populace should be allowed to do so with means to do so.. though it violates other basic freedoms?

alrighty, that's getting way off track, and not really about guns

back to the point.. without the threat of foreign violence on the populace..why is being armed a right.. when a military and police force should serve as that deterrent in this modern age

The Founding Fathers were concerned about England as this country was setting up it's own government at the time. The ammendment is being defended to give the citizens the right to defend against our own government, if the need ever arises.

 

[Life_Positive]

well, from me at least

I'm a Canadian, we dont have the 2nd Ammendment

I'm curious as to why it is a right to carry a weapon

Personally I see firearm possesion as a privilege then a right, and so does my country

so why is it a right in the states.. what is it about carrying a gun that gives itself the societal equivalent to free speech

just curious

It goes back to the Enlightenment-era philosophy that informed the drafting of the Constitution. The United States was largely envisioned as an experiment, testing the theories and values extolled by writers like John Locke, whose work contributed to the conception of Republican government, classical liberalism, social contract theory, etc... Entire books could be and have been written on the subject, so I won't attempt to fully express the history here, but a familiarity with both social contract theory and natural law will likely give you everything you need to know.

In a nut shell, government is an abstraction given physical form through the organized bodies that constitute it and was viewed as subordinate to the body of people that grant it the power to govern by their consent. According to this view, rights and privileged are not granted to the people by their government, but rather exist as the natural condition of human life. That is to say, people have natural rights and the government has no authority to infringe upon them. The Bill of Rights was drafted explicitly to ensure that "Congress shall make no law" to the effect of interfering with those rights.

The right to bear arms isn't particularly unique or remarkable in this context.

 

[badbabysitter]

To be honest, I'm fine with people having guns

have as many as you want and any kind you want

I just think they should be monitored and regulated..I want guns being used in crimes to be able to be tracked down to their source of sale

selling guns to felons in many parts is illegal.. and that sounds like making sense

but doesnt forbidding people with a history of violent gun crimes from owning guns.. a violation of their right to own them?

if that's the case, it's not really a right

a person that guns down his family and serves 20 years for it.. gets out...why shouldnt he/she be allowed to own another gun?

that person has been punished for their crime, how can we then punish them for what they havent done..again

so does gun ownership then become a privilege as opposed to a right


hence all my confusion

 

[about_average]

My take, in very simplistic terms.
The right to defend yourself is a natural right. Unarmed there are plenty of people you can't defend yourself from, unless maybe you're Bruce Lee. The ability to arm yourself evens things out, or at least gives you the chance of evening things out. Level playing field as it were.
This would also apply to defending yourself, in some situations, from the state or another country.

Without a car you can walk, ride a bike, take a taxi, take a bus, call up a friend to give you a ride.

There are restrictions on owning guns, one of which you have to have reached majority.
In Georgia, to buy from a dealer, you need a background check. To carry concealed requires more background and being finger printed. I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't have a problem with a training requirement.

As for women's rights and slavery, I do think the constitution provided for the first and abolished the second, unfortunately those in power were able to twist the meaning enough to pass laws to not recognize them without subsequent amendments.

 

[badbabysitter]

My take, in very simplistic terms.
The right to defend yourself is a natural right. Unarmed there are plenty of people you can't defend yourself from, unless maybe you're Bruce Lee. The ability to arm yourself evens things out, or at least gives you the chance of evening things out. Level playing field as it were.
This would also apply to defending yourself, in some situations, from the state or another country.

Without a car you can walk, ride a bike, take a taxi, take a bus, call up a friend to give you a ride.

There are restrictions on owning guns, one of which you have to have reached majority.
In Georgia, to buy from a dealer, you need a background check. To carry concealed requires more background and being finger printed. I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't have a problem with a training requirement.

As for women's rights and slavery, I do think the constitution provided for the first and abolished the second, unfortunately those in power were able to twist the meaning enough to pass laws to not recognize them without subsequent amendments.

But how does leveling the playing field become a right

is it my right to defend my self with a gun to defend myself from other people defending themselves with a gun



and violence is a crime.. we punish people that attack people..that's the leveller..if you assualt someone , you go to jail...that's the leveller, not the weapon

like I said, this isnt an attack on it

just trying to understand

 

[Obama_Sucks]

well, from me at least

I'm a Canadian, we dont have the 2nd Ammendment

I'm curious as to why it is a right to carry a weapon

Personally I see firearm possesion as a privilege then a right, and so does my country

so why is it a right in the states.. what is it about carrying a gun that gives itself the societal equivalent to free speech

just curious

What happened in Britain? Think before you ask such a dumb question.

 

[Life_Positive]

But how does leveling the playing field become a right

is it my right to defend my self with a gun to defend myself from other people defending themselves with a gun



and violence is a crime.. we punish people that attack people..that's the leveller..if you assualt someone , you go to jail...that's the leveller, not the weapon

like I said, this isnt an attack on it

just trying to understand

It seems that what you are missing is that these rights are not granted by laws, but are conceived of as having existed PRIOR TO laws. The second amendment was drafted to insure the the newly minted Federal government would not have the power to CREATE laws that interfered with the preexisting right.

 

[badbabysitter]

What happened in Britain? Think before you ask such a dumb question.

what does Britain have to do with my question?

why is it a right?

you seriously cant be this stupid

 

[shoulderblade]

A disarmed citizenry could never have opposed the King and his army to establish the United States of America. It goes all the way back to the beginning.

I am not all that familiar with American history but is it possible that it goes back before the beginning? There seems to be a serious animosity between the settlers and the British establisment that may have been evident well before the revolution.

The second amendment would thus be an affirmation in American culture that the opposition to tyranny was a principle of absolute importance.

 

[badbabysitter]

It seems that what you are missing is that these rights are not granted by laws, but are conceived of as having existed PRIOR TO laws. The second amendment was drafted to insure the the newly minted Federal government would not have the power to CREATE laws that interfered with the preexisting right.

yet the government interfers with whom can marry whom

or is marriage not a right and gun ownership is?